are you too family friendly?

in HR magazine, SHRM asks, "are you too family friendly?" (membership required) many organizations don't even stop to think about this. or worse, they do. i've seen companies that hired young, single people because the business required a lot of travel. the intention in hiring was that these people would travel most of the time, and burnout in a couple of years. then they'd just hire a new crop of youngsters. crazy, huh? but i digress......

i'm single. i'm single and i have no children. and i work in HR. and let me tell you, sometimes it just burns me up how many people get away with using the kids as an easy excuse to get out of work. and it happens. believe me, it happens. how do i know it happens? because not all the parents require all that much time off. it's strange how some parents seem to be able to make arrangements when their child is sick, or schedule parent/teacher conferences for before or after work. but some parents? they've got to be out every other week. but again, i digress....

shouldn't the point here be to value an employee's work/life balance? we know that an employee who has a healthy life outside of work is a better employee at the office. so how is your time off structured? and what allowances you do make, if any, for going outside of those guidelines? can an employee take off, without hassle, for a parent/teacher conference? can another employee, a single employee, take off to a meeting of a charity event they're working on? without hassle? or do you become the official judge and jury of what is "worthy" of your employees time?

and what about health care? is your plan structured, as many are, so that your single people who use your plan less actually carry more than their fair share of the burden?

what about opportunities for advancement? are those with families viewed as more stable and committed and more easily able to advance?

there are a lot of ways that a company can communicate that it's family friendly. but that can backfire as well, communicating to your single employees that you think they don't really matter. (and by the way, single people may not have children but they have families too. and as the workforce ages, you'll be having to make more and more allowances for us to take care of our aging parents. are you prepared for that?)

what about where you work?
all the best!
deb

Comments

[HR Wench]

Deb - I was totally going to blog about this article and you beat me to it! Darn it all to heck. Actually, I have a little different take on it so maybe I will still write about it anyways. I'm not a copy cat though I promise!! :)
-The Wench-a-roni

[Laurie Ruettimann]

I was totally going to write about this, but you nailed it. I'll link to you because I can't say it better!! :)

[deb]

hey wench-a-roni! they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so write on! just kidding. a lot of people seem to be writing about this one, and i look forward to your unique take on it.

laurie, i love links!! you're the best!

all the best!
deb

[The Good Witch of the South]

Glad to know that you plan to take care of me even if it means I have to stay in the basement!

Great picture of a wonderful family.

You really don't want to get me started on the rest of this. I see and hear it every day. I have clients who try to stay away from those with kids because they know they won't be there half the time, including where I work.

Nobody said life was fair. Maybe they did but "they" didn't know what "they" were talking about!

[deb]

no. we worked that all out, remember? the chick in the picture is going to take care of you when you're old. haha

unfortunately, working in HR, it seems like everyone wants us to write policies that are going to *make* life fair. of course, there are times when i have actually told people, "whoever told you life was fair or easy lied to you."

i see the other side too. but plenty is written about the "family" point of view.

love ya!
the wicked witch of the mid-west

[RJ]

Hi Deb,

A few comments.

I'm currently single, on a "career break" offered by my employer as part of the "work-life" balance programme. We can have 1, 2 or 3 years away, and go back to our jobs.

The conditions of return are similar to those for maternity leave (can you tell I'm not from the USA?)

The time off isn't paid. (Some maternity pay is covered by the government here)

The program recognises that flexibility in careers is a good thing. And the organisation stands a chance of retaining experienced, mid-career people who want to go off and do volunteer work, or study, or generally try a different approach to life.

I'm all for flexible working and work-life balance being applied to everyone.

That said, generally I get frustrated by people whining about how tax breaks etc go to those who have kids, or complaining about kid-friendly policies.

Society as a whole needs people to have children. A happy society has happy families, happy friendship networks and communities (family in this case meaning whatever your family is)

Kids shouldn't be aren't a fashion accessory or a "lifestyle choice" but a normal part of life.

Someone has to have them, and take all the headaches and sleeplessness and general downside of raising them (yes there is an upside, but it comes with a lot of hard work).

So I'm all for family-friendly (people-friendly) policies, and I'm happy for some tax-breaks (childcare subsidies!) to follow kids.

That said - it always amazes me that employers pay different benefit amounts depending on the family status of employees. I come from system of nationalised healthcare, so it doesn't arise here.

[deb]

RJ,
touche'. and I'm surprised I didn't receive more feedback like yours. i'm not against people having kids or companies being understanding and family-friendly. in fact, i'm all for it. the problem i have is when some people (only some) figure out that if they say 'it's my kid's they get to bend all sorts of attendance policies and even go over their time, year after year after year. it's not those who genuinely have things going on with their families that bother me, it's those that use it to use it to get out of work more. especially when a single person at the same company gets grilled if they want a day off.

i'm just saying....rather than being "family-friendly", why don't we broaden that scope to recognizing "work/life balance" in a way that views all of your employees lives outside of work as valuable.

plus, that other stuff about advancement and health care plans. i'm saying that too. (ha)

thanks for visiting and for the great comment!
all the best!
deb

[Michele]

I am a manager, a working mother, and have been with my current employer for 18 years. I spent the first 8 years of employment child free. There is a tremendous challenge for working parents, particularly mothers, as most child rearing responsibility still seems to fall to the fairer gender.
I see my children onto the bus each morning before heading to work. I pay dearly for afterschool childcare which provides my children a safe, nurturing environment with a healthy dose of fun.
In spite of my commitment to my work, there are times when we (conflicted!) working moms just can't seem to be everything to everyone. We envy the stay-at-homes; we sometimes resent the single professionals (who spend their descretionary income on lovely vacations and nice cars, instead of childcare, sports activities and doctors bills). Occasionally our kids get sick. Ultimately that is more important than my job.
In order to achieve life/work balance, I try to do the "right thing", and have altered my thinking .... by considering how I may view a decision looking back on it later...

Teacher Conferences before and after work hours are great in theory... Do you realize that teachers are often parents themselves, trying to achieve work/life balance, too?

Give us a break....we trying....we're really trying.....