Demi at Pilgrim’s Progress links to LA Mom, who in turn links to this photo-essay (with music) of the working environment at Motherhood magazine.
As Demi writes:
There is no reason whatsoever to think that every office couldn’t look something like that. The babies would be a “distraction”? No more so than the usual, trite sexual tensions, politics and “banter” in the “ordinary” office. Breasts showing during feedings? Why not? That’s what they’re there for, what they were made for. Cleavage is distracting, too, and serves no purpose *but* to distract. After some time, you won’t even notice the little bit of boobage flashing now and then.
Our economy – and, in particular, our workplaces – are still modeled on the “Father Knows Best” model, in which all workers are implicitly assumed to have wives at home, taking care of the babies. This model of the workplace is costly to women who’d like (or need) careers but are economically punished for being mothers, and also costly to men who’d like (or need) careers but wind up being alienated from a family they barely ever see.
Some individuals successfully opt out of the “Father Knows Best” economy, of course. But most don’t. The workplace makes default assumptions about family life that haven’t been true for decades. We should change that default assumption to something more suited for the 21st century.
Some individuals successfully opt out of the “Father Knows Best”? economy, of course. But most don’t. The workplace makes default assumptions about family life that haven’t been true for decades. We should change that default assumption to something more suited for the 21st century.
I certainly hope that “more suited for the 21st century” does *not* mean the scenario presented by the photo essay from Mothering magazine. Children do not belong in the work place. On-site daycare, paid for by the employer, would be appropriate. With breaks for women with children to check on them and breast feed if needed. But babies in the office, toddlers running around? No.
I disagree.
My office is loaded with children running around, bugging the hell out of me, begging for treats and attention and to sit in my lap and look at pictures. No breasts hanging out, but if there were, it would be OK. I manage. In fact, I love it, and wouldn’t have it any other way.
People should be with their children when their children are young. The working world should change to acknowledge that basic philosophical truth. People who want their workplaces to be child-free can join with other child-free seekers to mutually support that choice, but I bet the vast majority would much prefer having the kids around. Sure, we’d get less done.
But we’d love it more, and it would make about 75% of the problems faced by working parents go away.
My office is loaded with children running around, bugging the hell out of me, begging for treats and attention and to sit in my lap and look at pictures. No breasts hanging out, but if there were, it would be OK. I manage. In fact, I love it, and wouldn’t have it any other way.
I am impressed that your employer allows that. But I don’t see why other workers should be forced to put up with having children around when they are trying to get work done. As you mentioned, productivity would suffer. That is bad for workers and employers.
What about safety issues? Would there be a full time nanny running around the office making sure the children didn’t hurt themselves while the parents were working? Wouldn’t a nice, safe, staffed day care area be a better option? The children would be safe, kept busy and amused, and perhaps educated on basic levels if they were old enough. The parents could visit, assure themselves the children were well and get back to work.
Well, my office is my basement, and I’m my own boss. (Sometimes I slack off and “stick it to the man”.)
Yeah, you could have day care where they’re kept safe from tigers, fed and watered, and occasionally given a fragment of education. Here in Colorado we call that the “public school system”.
[Insert huge quantities of mirth here.]
Hell, no, I don’t want kids running around my workplace.
The babies would be a “distraction”? No more so than the usual, trite sexual tensions, politics and “banter”? in the “ordinary”? office.
Anyone who says that hasn’t spent much time around a colicky child.
And Robert, are those children running around in your basement office yours, or other peoples’? Please consider the fact that being distracted by your kids in your house (and to a certain extent even other peoples’ kids in your house) is very different than being in a cubicle on company property with a deadline and someone else’s child pulling files out of your cabinet.
The issue of safety in an office setting is also very important: stuff falls, people walk around quickly, there are outlets and cords everywhere, etc etc.
But the oddest part of this discussion is the assumption that everyone works in an office. Should waitstaff have their kids with them, running around the restaurant or the kitchen? Should miners? Auto workers? Surgeons?
In all these cases, I can see that onsite daycare would be equally useful, and indeed there is a powerful argument to be made that onsite daycare would still address “75% of the problems of working parents.” But kids in the workplace is nowhere near such an easy topic as this article and Robert’s comment suggest.
Actually, I could see having infants in a workplace — they spend most of their time asleep and are unlikely to hurt themselves. They’d be handy to breastfeed as needed.
Toddlers, on the other hand, would be very distracting. On-site daycare would definitely be my preference.
Once children are old enough to entertain themselves, I could see working with them in the office. If they could spend their time drawing or reading, they wouldn’t be too distracting. I’d think they’d prefer something like daycare where they could run around or talk to their friends, though.
My parents owned their own business, and from my first memories I remember hanging around the office, playing with the typewriter and the copier. I’m not sure how it would’ve worked out had my temperment been different, though.
I think the scenario presented in the photo essay is an interesting concept, but I think temperments, toddler-hood and the expectation of a certain performance level would really put some kinks in that picture.
I think any little kid, from infant on to preschooler needs more attention than a human can give while trying to type, do paperwork and handle phone calls. I for one can’t type email with someone hanging on my leg going “Mummy I pee!”
I for one can’t type email with someone hanging on my leg going “Mummy I pee!”?
That cracks me up, because this morning I had my littlest hanging on my leg and saying “Daddy I poopy!” and my primary reaction was “damn it, I’m trying to post on my blog, Stephanie!” Some things are universal, and it does make things difficult, doesn’t it?
Part of it is societal expectations concerning what is work, and under what conditions work is performed. A major part of making things better for families is adjusting those expectations so that they include kids. Children interrupting a meeting is unacceptable precisely because it is unheard-of; nobody gets upset when a meeting is interrupted because the lunch finally arrives. In a world where kids in the workplace was an assumed fixture, nobody would blink an eye at the kid wandering into the boardroom needing to go nap-nap; Mom or Dad would just say “whoops, excuse me,” take care of it, and be back in five minutes.
I do see the concerns about some workplaces; the steel foundry isn’t the place for toddlers, and neither is the fry line at McDonald’s. Places like that where there is genuine danger probably ought to go with an integrated day-care model.
And of course I recognize that there are a lot of people who don’t like kids, or who don’t like the idea of working with kids. That doesn’t seem particularly material; right now, there are a lot of people who do like the idea of working with their kids who are SOL. Either way we’re going to have people having to forge their own compromises or find their own individual path.
Part of it is societal expectations concerning what is work, and under what conditions work is performed. A major part of making things better for families is adjusting those expectations so that they include kids. Children interrupting a meeting is unacceptable precisely because it is unheard-of; nobody gets upset when a meeting is interrupted because the lunch finally arrives. In a world where kids in the workplace was an assumed fixture, nobody would blink an eye at the kid wandering into the boardroom needing to go nap-nap; Mom or Dad would just say “whoops, excuse me,”? take care of it, and be back in five minutes.
I view work as, well….work. I am getting paid to do a job. I am not getting paid to spend time putting the kiddies down for “nap-nap”, changing diapers, or wiping noses, or any of the myriad things babies and small children need done for them. And I don’t see why any employer should have to pay a worker for the time they spend taking care of their children.
I do see the concerns about some workplaces; the steel foundry isn’t the place for toddlers, and neither is the fry line at McDonald’s. Places like that where there is genuine danger probably ought to go with an integrated day-care model.
So, while having the kiddies around is supposedly a good thing while at work, only a certain class or type of workers should have that opportunity or privilege? The others have to make do with day-care, which is what in my opinion was the optimal solution for all workers, not just those who work in offices.
And of course I recognize that there are a lot of people who don’t like kids, or who don’t like the idea of working with kids. That doesn’t seem particularly material; right now, there are a lot of people who do like the idea of working with their kids who are SOL. Either way we’re going to have people having to forge their own compromises or find their own individual path.
I do not like children. The thought of working any place where I have to listen to a crying child for any length of time makes my skin crawl and my head hurt. And while that might not be a very enlightened view on my part, how is it not ” particularly material”? My wants and needs as a worker are less than that of a worker with a child/children?
And I am uncertain about your view of the average worker in the US. Are you under the impression that a person with bills to pay and people to support can pick and choose who they work for and what conditions they work under? Because, I have to tell you, that is not how it works in the real world for most people.
I like children just fine. However, at my first job out of college, my boss used to bring his 10-year-old daughter to work with him on a regular basis and expect me to look after her. He was busy and important, and I was just the girl who did the office scutwork. Never mind that the scutwork had to get done and that I had to stay and finish it after the day ended and he took his kid home. I was a woman and a peon, and obviously it was my job to take care of any stray kids who happened to be hanging around.
It’s fine by me if people want to design offices that will allow them to look after their own children. But in my experience, that’s not the way it works. In my experience, when people bring their children to work, it’s the (usually female, usually low-paid and low-status) administrative staff who get stuck with the extra work. That may be the way Robert likes it: after all, what better way to make sure people like me know our place. But it seems like an unfair system.
I am profoundly saddened that this is the impression you have of me. I wish I knew why. Needless to say (except that I guess it isn’t needless), I am not talking about bosses foisting their get on the help, but about changing a societal assumption so that (for example) single parents trying to struggle their way into economic security could get a little help.
Mousehounde, your wants and needs aren’t immaterial; I phrased that badly. They’re no more material than anyone else’s; under the current set of assumptions, you’re happy with the child-free aspect of work, and Jane X is unhappy. Under a new set of assumptions, Jane X is happy and you’re hating life. Since somebody is frowning either way, a change from one to another doesn’t necessarily have an impact on net happiness of the workers. I suspect that there are more people who’d rather have their kids at work than the reverse, but I could be wrong.
If there were a way for dangerous jobs to integrate kids, that’d be the optimum. Since, as others have noted, you can’t really have kids playing in blast furnaces, we might have to settle for day care instead of mom’n’daddy care. I didn’t think anybody thought of day care as an optimum situation in any way, shape or form. Perhaps you can expound on why you think it is.
Robert, I think it is great that you are able to work from home, that you get to spend time with your children. Does your wife work and you are the primary care giver for the children? If so, that is very cool of you.
You kinda changed my words a bit, I never said day-care was an optimal “situation’. I said it was the best solution. While it would be great if everyone got to stay home and take care of the kids full time, that is not the real world.
As to why I think day-care is an optimal solution: Most everyone I know works for a living, and not at home. I only know one couple who is able to afford one parent, the wife, stay home and take care of the kids. All the other folks I know with kids, both parents *have* to work. I know several single/divorced moms who *have* to work. When I said day-care was the “optimal solution”, I meant day-care paid for by the employer. Private day-care sucks. It is prohibitively expensive, and one has to pay even on days the child is not actually at the day-care center. Employer provided day-care would, in theory, be there 24/7 to accommodate the worker. No more rushing around trying to get the kids to day-care before work. No more worrying about working late and having to make arraignments for the kids to be picked up after hours. No more getting charged extra for not being able to work around private day-care posted hours. Employer provided day-care would allow working parents one less worry. They would know where the kids were, could check on them during the day, and be close by should any problems arise.
Also, I think it is very unprofessional to have children in the work place. Safety issues aside, as a customer I would not want to be in a position where I am competing for the attention of someone I am paying for their services. I want the person fixing my car to *be* fixing my car, not running after a child. I want the cashier ringing up my purchases to be paying attention to me, not a child tugging at their clothes. I want the person who does my taxes paying attention to work, not distracted by a new baby or a toddler.
Day-care is not an optimal “situation” by any means. But employer provided day-care is, in my opinion, the best solution for working parents and for customers.
I work from home and I don’t have kids. But when I’m working, I’m working (or, um, reading blogs, sometimes), and it’s very hard for me to multi-task with something that’s not right in front of me. I can switch between computer work and paper work if they’re both right here, but it would be pretty much impossible for me to flip back and forth between computer work and doing something to/for a small child. Also, I wouldn’t be paying attention to them, even if I was in the same room, and that would be bad for the kid.
If I had kids and was still telelcommuting, I might be able to get by with hiring a teenage-type babysitter to hang out with the kid in another part of the house and deal with meals and such, while I’d be available if necessary. But I would definitely want my child to be somewhere where someone is actually focused on him or her, not where he or she is being ignored while I try to get some work done.
That’s not meant to reflect on you, Robert — I think the situation in which you work for yourself leaves you a lot more flexibility in when you need to get what done, so if you can successfully split your attention between your work and your kids, that’s great. (Do you have someone else help to watch them sometimes, like when you have an impending deadline? I’m curious.) But it wouldn’t work for the amount I need to get done.
(Also: I absolutely dread the thought of kids interrupting meetings. The damned things are entirely too long as it is!)
Also, I think it is very unprofessional to have children in the work place. Safety issues aside, as a customer I would not want to be in a position where I am competing for the attention of someone I am paying for their services.
Well said, Mousehounde. I have walked out of stores and real-estate agents when confronted with a screaming child taking attention away from the person I was dealing with or when confronted with an office that stank of poopy diaper.
Another issue I have with kids at the office, as a lawyer, is client confidentiality. Little pitchers have big ears and all that. I don’t need someone’s kid breaking privilege on me.
Mousehounde, my wife and I both work from our home. So yes, that does give us both a lot of flexibility. In the morning I teach while she watches the baby, and in the afternoons I work and the baby wanders back and forth between us, while the older kids do their homework, play, chores, etc. If I have a deadline, I can close the door and Tamara becomes the first responder to kid crises.
For a lot of places, an on-site daycare would be a good solution. (And I’d certainly prefer that to the nothing that we have now.)
This thread has brought up a lot of interesting new paradigms for me. I certainly see how it would be basically unworkable with the current norms and assumptions we have about the workplace.
However, were we to put those aside for a minute (along with ones about how children need to be kept separate from what goes on in “real life”) I think some radical, and basically good things could happen.
1) Children might learn earlier that they are important and yet, not the center of the universe
2) Education might have more meaning as children would have more of an understanding of what they might do with it once they have it
3) The idea that people need to choose between being involved parents and having a fulfilling career might become a moot point.
The idea is certainly not fool proof– but I for one find it worth investigating.
BTW, I don’t have children, but like to interact with other people’s children, so I imagine that colors my view on the issue.
I think Robert’s spot on, and I like Maureen’s comments, also.
In the long run, I think integrating childrearing, education, and practical work is a good idea. Of course, the thought of nightmarish child labor pops into people’s heads at that, and with good reason. That problem still exists.
But I think it’s the structure of work, the organization of workplaces, that most needs to change. Many workplaces aren’t safe places for children — because they aren’t safe places for adults, either.
Many children grow up without a clear idea of what their parents do for a living, and without a realistic idea of how they can make their own way. That’s a problem that integrating childcare, education, and work could help overcome.
I don’t think that it’s a good idea to educate children about the “real world” by having their parents bring them to work. The problem with that is that it reinforces class inequality. It means that the children of white collar workers will only learn about white collar work and the children of blue collar workers will only learn about that kind of job. (And of course, the children of blue-collar workers are much more likely to end up in that non-optimal daycare, since their parents are much more likely to work in unsafe environments.) Child-friendly workplaces might be good because they facilitate the parent-child relationship, but as a vocational education strategy, it seems really lacking.
Sounds nice, but I would be surprised if that were how it really worked. For it to work, we’d have to change assumptions about what clerical workers are entitled to, along with assumptions about parenting.
In general, children are trained to occupy the same class as their parents now, anyway. It doesn’t always prove the case that they will, of course, but it usually does.
As things stand, many workplaces, especially where working class people work, are dangerous and would be terrible places to bring a child. Those are things that ought to be changed.
I hate to sound like Johnny One-Note, but what I had in mind was, frankly, how I’d like childrearing to work in a socialist society — one which was actively demolishing class differences and improving the lives of workers. This sort of change in childrearing practices could be part of such a process of change.
I can’t remember where exactly, but I seem to remember Marx or Engels advocating something similar. So, Robert’s advocacy of such a setup was a bit amusing to me. But a good idea is a good idea.
Oh, one other thing that’s always bothered me, is the notion that one is educated, then graduates and starts work, and there’s no further education. Education ought to be a life-long process, as well.
“You! Over there! Stop dividing people by class! And you, in the blue shirt! Start treating members of the working class better!” We’ll get right on that, chief. :P
You know, it’s interesting, but in 20-odd years of working life (some years much odder than others), I have yet to meet someone who couldn’t be fairly described as a “worker”.
The middle class/petty bourgeoisie still has to do actual work; it’s optional for the bourgeoisie proper. In ten-odd years of working life, I’ve met hands-on bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie who sat in an office and never did any real work. And then there are the really powerful ones, who you hear about but don’t actually ever see — I remember the staff meeting at one company where I worked, after Paul Allen bought it. We got to hear a lot about the gospel of Paul Allen, but he didn’t bother to show, himself. The CEO of our company went on and on about how humbled he was at getting to meet Paul Allen, and being treated “almost as an equal.”
But yes, most people actually do work.
Another thing about Sally’s comment: in Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickeled and Dimed, she makes a point that “unskilled labor” often required a great deal of on-the-job training and careful attention to detail: i.e., skill. While there are many jobs that could be better performed by a monkey, as the saying goes, that’s not the true for most. The trouble isn’t that being a janitor or a waiter/waitress is intrinsically a pointless job — the trouble is the people with those jobs aren’t treated with the respect they deserve.
Children might learn earlier that they are important and yet, not the center of the universe.
This comment bothers me because although there are plenty of spoiled, undisciplined kids out there, the notion that one is the center of the universe is developmental. Younger children can’t help it; their brains tell them that they are centers of the universe.
Anyway, in all of this discussion, I haven’t noticed anyone take the needs of the children into account. Babies, and even young toddlers, in an office could be okay for the child and the parent because it allows for bonding and all, but what is a child older than 2 or 3 supposed to do in an office all day? Work is BORING, and if you think day after day in an office is dull for you, imagine how it would feel if you were 5. Children need stimulation and a place to run around and be crazy. An on-site daycare would fulfill these needs and keep parents close to their children. If you think kids in your cubicle would drive you crazy, imagine how the kids must feel.
Thanks, batgirl, that’s what I’d been pondering all day. Even if I had a workplace where I could bring my toddler/infant/whoever, it wouldn’t be what was best for the child.
Kids, especially the infant-preschool set, need serious quantities of attention… learning activities, gross motor, fine motor, sensory activities, time to interact and play and socialize with kids their own stage, younger and older, all sorts of things. I am (1) not trained to do these things, and (2) I simply can’t do them if I’m writing programs/dealing with clients all day. It’s not just a kids basic physical needs, it’s whats best for them mentally/emotionally as well.
I do like the idea of an integrated daycare, but there’s too many scenarios where that isn’t possible (office too small, not enough demand, etc. etc). The only other idea that comes to mind is an AFFORDABLE (regardless of class/income), full-time, more or less standardized day-care system. Of course, that sort of thing is astronomically expensive to implement, and someone has to pay for it.
It would also be interesting if maternity/parental benefits actually amounted to enough to stay off of work for longer (Canada’s 1 year, 50% of income is better than US, but still not enough). If we could make preschool and kindergarten full time and government controlled/funded (ie- turn them into “school”), WITH the 1:5 caregiver ration that you get in daycare (ha ha ha). Yeah… lots of ideas, none of them cheap.
Children might learn earlier that they are important and yet, not the center of the universe.
Batgirl and wookie–
Your points are well taken. Essentially, I believe there is a balance to be struck on this issue, and that we haven’t found it. I will freely admit that I probably overstated it for the sake making it.
Also, I hadn’t thought much about the 3-10 age group. I see your point about needing more kid-focused time there. After 10 though there might be ways for kids to be truly helpful– this could go down a bad child labor path if not dealt with properly. However, I do think there are ways engage children with real things to reinforce that what they are learning in school has application to the rest of their life without exploiting them or putting them in danger.
Finally, it was never my intention to “blame” children for acting like the center of the universe–my point was only that we tend to push them off to a place where they won’t be a bother, and then pamper them so they won’t notice (again, sweeping generalizations, I’m sure this happens more in some places and less, even much less in others)
As a child, I would have much preferred to get to participate in the real world, even if it meant giving up the “right” to instant gratification.
Good thoughts that help me to clarify my thinking on this. Thanks!
I’m actually fairly neutral on the “children in the office vs employer-provided daycare” question. It seems to me that both of those could be appropriate models at different sorts of work environments, and employers could choose which one suits their office. When people are applying for jobs, they’d ask “what sort of child care arrangements does this office use” at the same time they ask about what hours and days they’re hiring for, and so on.
We don’t have to choose one or the other for the entire economy.
What we should choose for the entire economy, imo, is a model of work which assumes that every worker may have family responsibilities which the job cannot override, and so must accommodate. Right now employers assume that every worker (female or male) has an unpaid wife at home taking care of those things, and that’s gotta change.
Arrrggh, I agree with Amp! It burns, it burns!
And if that didn’t make you spew coffee, this will:
The appropriate locus for this change is the Federal government, through tax policy.
(Oooh, look, pretty men with swords on horses flying in the sky.)
When people are applying for jobs, they’d ask “what sort of child care arrangements does this office use”? at the same time they ask about what hours and days they’re hiring for, and so on.
I dunno. As a single, childless person, this question isn’t something that even occurs to me to ask. It would feel awfully oppressive if I had to ask whether the office had kids running around. I mean, I like the idea of on-site or centralized daycare, if only for the selfish reason of not having to fill in for colleagues who have child-care emergencies.
But I’m not so keen on being subjected to other peoples’ kids when I’m trying to get stuff done (and yes, I’ve had this happen when I worked for city government — one time, a little girl insufficiently supervised wandered into my office, pulled original documents off my desk and started making paper dolls with them). What do you do when it’s the boss’s kid who does something like this?
Pingback: Half Changed World
I have worked at a job where a co-worker brought her child. It was horrible. It was an unsafe environment for a kid so she was kept in a small room with a TV and some toys. Her mother was unproductive because she had to spend a lot of time taking care of the child. The child was unhappy because she didn’t get as much attention as she wanted. Everyone else in the office was unhappy because the kid cried all the time. Clients were always asking us what that awful noise was.
There was talk about allowing a child to come at my current job. I immediately began looking for another place to work.
Heather–
I can see how that would be horrible. I wonder if it would be different if there were more children? From what you are saying it sounds like a lot of the problems stemmed from the child having to be alone all day.
I think one or two children in a traditional workplace as they are today would be a disaster. My point is really can we redesign the work place in ways that it could work? Maybe not, but it seems worth the discussion to me.
I wouldn’t assume that blue-collar workers never bring their kids to work. Depends on the job. It’s very common for business-owning families to put the kids to work (say, running errands for the family restaurant). It used to be common for Daddy to bring the kids to his worksite and let the kids mix plaster or whatever to feel ‘important.’
Robert, while I agree with you that kid interruptions shouldn’t be treated worse than other interruptions, I have to say that interruptions aren’t any better when adults do them. There is one attorney who I run into at depositions who *regularly* steps out to talk on the phone, asks us to read back answers because she was doing something else, etc. She has a second job, not a kid. It’s still unprofessional.
For those folks who are dealing with paternity leave problems, an anonymous phone call to the EEOC might get HR’s attention.