No. of Recommendations: 11
Posting this out of nostalgia for the "Cost of SAHM: $1 million", or whatever the name of that thread was:

http://nymag.com/news/features/retro-wife-2013-3/

Kelly graduated from college magna cum laude and got an M.S.W. from Penn, again with honors, receiving an award for her negotiating skills.

Now Kelly is 33, and if dreams were winds, you might say that hers have shifted. She believes that every household needs one primary caretaker, that women are, broadly speaking, better at that job than men, and that no amount of professional success could possibly console her if she felt her two young children—­Connor, 5, and Lillie, 4—were not being looked after the right way. The maternal instinct is a real thing, Kelly argues: Girls play with dolls from childhood, so “women are raised from the get-go to raise children successfully. When we are moms, we have a better toolbox.” Women, she believes, are conditioned to be more patient with children, to be better multitaskers, to be more tolerant of the quotidian grind of playdates and temper tantrums; “women,” she says, “keep it together better than guys do."



She was shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to learn, after getting an MSW, that social work isn't as high-paying as she imagined. If only there'd been a way to know that ahead of time...


cm,
not more patient than hardly anybody, terrible multi-tasker, and intolerant of playdates and temper tantrums
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
not more patient than hardly anybody, terrible multi-tasker, and intolerant of playdates and temper tantrums

Amen.

If only there'd been a way to know that ahead of time...

Like research? And published public pay scales? :)

Ishtar
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
Women, she believes, are conditioned to be more patient with children, to be better multitaskers, to be more tolerant of the quotidian grind of playdates and temper tantrums; “women,” she says, “keep it together better than guys do."

That's my first complaint about the article, right there. A majority of women may be better suited at being parents than men, but I know plenty of cases where either both parents had an equal amount of good parenting skills, or where the husband was actually better, and sometimes less-stressed, about raising children. For years my brother combed his oldest daughter's hair. My SIL was too impatient, and she jerked the comb through, which led to tears and complaints and irritation on both sides. So my brother, who has an incredible amount of patience, would be the one to comb it. And later, when she liked the bald look, he shaved her head for her.

There are cases where there's a trade-off; the mother stays at home for a few years, then goes back to the working world, and the father changes to a job where he can spend more time at home. The irritating part of the article is that they give some attention to new situations, but keep framing it the same way; women are better at being parents and staying home.

And now women who like working, and whose kids are well-taken care of, are going to be hit with the same club, one more time: Good Mommies Stay Home.

Not always. Sometimes they work because they don't see a way of saving for the kids' college and the parents' retirement at the same time. Sometimes, due to financial hardship, they have to keep working because they can't afford to move, and they can't make the mortgage payments without her contribution. Sometimes the father isn't making as much as people think, or he is in a profession where work comes in at irregular intervals (actors, writers, consultants and so on), and it's her paycheck that keeps the money flowing regularly. Or maybe she's in the job with the medical benefits, and she doesn't want to give that up.

<sigh>

I wish people would just get over this. There is no one answer. Different strokes and all that. Couples should work out a system that works for them, and not rely on media articles to tell them how to organize their lives.

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Kelly argues: Girls play with dolls from childhood, so “women are raised from the get-go to raise children successfully. When we are moms, we have a better toolbox.”
Ummm...in her house maybe.

Despite a brief stint with Barbies, I was always a legos/blocks/stuffed stuffed animals kind of gal, and never played with dolls. I built huge structures and plazas for my stuffed friends to inhabit. Set me up a treat to be an architect and engineer, it did.

Nothing wrong with playing with dolls, or being a mom. Just don't go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt to be a SAHM. That's just foolish.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Well, both my wife and I had successful careers and raised 2 children together. Not that difficult, really.

Did have sense enough not to get a degree in social work, that's for sure.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 28
I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Recently, the Ann-Marie Slaughter that was referenced in this article was a keynote speaker at an event at my work. I keep thinking about the Yahoo situation.

But my underlying question is deeper than this whole male/female thing.

It's: When did it become taken utterly for granted that the American work week is not forty hours per week, but seventy, or eighty?

We look at all this and talk about how stressed people are with work, but that's because they are working almost all the time. Ann-Marie, when she spoke, talked about the fact that "it's simply impossible to consistently leave work by six pm and be successful."

All these articles say things like that, and assume that this is okay. I don't want to be Marissa Meyer or a super-power anything or anyone.

But I do want to be able to work, to save for retirement, to put my kids through college.

And in today's day and age, that's nearly impossible on one salary. Depending where you live, it may be completely impossible.

But competition has been escalated to the point where success is defined by being physically at work until seven, eight, nine o'clock at night, being available by some electronic device 24 hours a day, if you do manage to leave the office, then it is expected that you will be back online later that night.

All simply to keep your job... never mind get ahead. And sometimes... oftentimes... that's not even enough.

Forget the gender wars. Forget the SAHM/working parent wars.

How about the fact that the American work ethic has been turned into some insane gladiator competition where the one who moves into their cube gets ever-so-slightly ahead... but never enough?

GSF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
It's: When did it become taken utterly for granted that the American work week is not forty hours per week, but seventy, or eighty?


Because we are Americans - whatever anyone does, it is part of the culture that Working longer and harder shows that I am better and more committed
that combined with the downsizing & reduction in staff of the last few years, and there it is.
the new norm.

I spend enough time working in a culture where I put in 50 hours/week, and am questioned about why I work so much, and why do I not leave earlier or take more days off.
I arrive before my PM and leave when he does.
My colleagues consider me a "workaholic" - most of them arrive after the PM and leave before he does, because they have put in their time and
The work will be there tomorrow

So what happens if we (the global we) just don't do it?
WHat happens when people leave the office, turn off the connectivity and just say not available after whatever-o-clock.
Would they really get fired?
So many people are so terrified of losing their jobs that few are willing to take back their lives...

I do not have the answers, but when I next am shifted into an "American Culture" job, I will be better at walking away at the end of the day.


peace & work
t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Not always. Sometimes they work because they don't see a way of saving for the kids' college and the parents' retirement at the same time. Sometimes, due to financial hardship, they have to keep working because they can't afford to move, and they can't make the mortgage payments without her contribution. Sometimes the father isn't making as much as people think, or he is in a profession where work comes in at irregular intervals (actors, writers, consultants and so on), and it's her paycheck that keeps the money flowing regularly. Or maybe she's in the job with the medical benefits, and she doesn't want to give that up. <sigh>
I wish people would just get over this. There is no one answer. Different strokes and all that. Couples should work out a system that works for them, and not rely on media articles to tell them how to organize their lives.
Nancy


I'm so glad I'm not in the workforce any more. It is so stressful, no matter what you do.

I agree with Nancy. My husband was a stay-at-home dad in 1983. (It just so happens that the daycare child abuse was raging and I was a secretary so child care was expensive for us.) He was working on his Masters and taking care of a newborn. Then I got pregnant by accident, ended up with only 17 months between our children. He was a staying at home with a toddler and a newborn. He was great at it. He was always more patient. His upbringing was better for discipline (although I always thought a little too strict). But that's the thing. We balanced each other. As it turned out, he didn't finish his degree (Masters in Religion with not much hope to get a Ph.D. to teach) and only had intermittent jobs until the last 12 years of his life. I kept my job and my benefits, especially because of the health care, and we survived.

The argument that women are better at multitasking, at nurturing, at taking care of children is ridiculous. I'm sure there are plenty of men that would be true of. Just as there are with women. Every situation has it's own dynamics.

A woman who writes nonsense like this article is delusional. Maybe she is better than her husband at those things. That doesn't mean every woman is.

Oh, and btw I still did a lot of the housework and the yardwork. That was still a problem throughout our marriage. I cared more about those things than he did.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
McMartin preschool trial
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I really do not relate to most of the stuff that is being said here.

I very seldom worked more than a 40 hour week. When I was managing the office in Greenbelt, it was my belief that if somebody had to work more than a 40 hour week, it was because I had failed to scope out the task properly. I must have done OK, since I do not remember anybody working late regularly.

I once had a person at they gym where I worked tell me that all his people had to work more than 40 hours, and he was proud of it. What a jerk!

Now there is a kind of person whose psychology (or pathology) makes him want stress. I was once on a task with another person. It was rather boring, because we spent about 1/3 of the time just waiting to get results from vendors so that we could evaluate them. But the other guy told his wife that he was working really hard and being really stressed out. When we got together socially with my wife, his wife gave my wife great sympathy for how hard I was working. That was really funny.

Anyway, I think that if you are working long hours regularly, you need to find another job, or maybe evaluate your work to see if you can be more efficient.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"But competition has been escalated to the point where success is defined by being physically at work until seven, eight, nine o'clock at night, being available by some electronic device 24 hours a day, if you do manage to leave the office, then it is expected that you will be back online later that night."

This is not an entirely new phenom. When I started in the full-time job market back in the the early 1980's, I remember a number of people who regularly stayed late and worked on weekends to do additional research, and continue to learn more about their jobs. Most have them have since retired, but all ended up in high level leadership positions because they were better at their jobs than anyone else.

Also, when I was single, I would tend to stay late because I didn't have anyone waiting at home for me. After I married and we had children, I was/am less inclined (though it still happens on occasion) to stay late because being home with my family is more important to me than climbing any higher on the corporate ladder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't know if it's always success. In my (and DH's) line of work, economic hard times mean A) positions get frozen so there are fewer people to do the work, and B) greater demand for social services. So there's less people to do more work.

His day is 6:30-6:00, at least a half-day or more in the office on Saturdays, and Sundays are for doing reports needed on Monday.

I had to be available 24/7 every other month for several years. The consequences of not getting everything done are made out to be so dire, people are too busy scrambling to hold top management accountable for providing enough resources. Or if they do...well, there are no more resources, so do it all, anyway.


It didn't used to be like this. But once the top levels saw you could get this level of work out of salaried, exempt employees in emergency situations, it got easier to demand it as SOP.

cm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here's the thing - having to suck up to anyone stinks - but that's a fact of life for just about everyone unless you win the lottery.

The Feminine Mystic was about how boring it was to be a housewife - and basically suck up to your husband and that wasn't fulfilling - so women wanted to have the same career opportunities as men.

And then we get into the workforce - and discover you have to suck up to your boss - the men weren't fulfilled either.

And even if you're born into a wealthy family, you have to suck up to some parent to get any money out of them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And even if you're born into a wealthy family, you have to suck up to some parent to get any money out of them.

Ayup! Or adopted.

The £5m cut: Vidal Sassoon leaves adopted son out of will after failing to heal rift before his death

David Sassoon, 41, was disinherited as well as Vidal's three ex-wives

Vidal Sassoon was worth an estimated £100?million

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298244/The-5m-cut-V...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's: When did it become taken utterly for granted that the American work week is not forty hours per week, but seventy, or eighty?



---------------------------------------------------

My husband just resigned from his 12 hour a day job. He is 65 years old and worked from 7AM to 7PM.
If you are not working those hours in his line of work, you are NOT working. That message is loud and clear. You will not keep your job if you waltz in at 9 and leave at 5. Many of their customers were international and because of that meetings were actually held at 7AM.
If you commuted 2 hours to your job, you'd have to get up in the wee hours just to make the meeting.
So, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. That's what my husband did.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So what happens if we (the global we) just don't do it?
WHat happens when people leave the office, turn off the connectivity and just say not available after whatever-o-clock.
Would they really get fired?


_______________________________

Would they get fired? In a word, yes!
Of course, that all depends on where you work and for who.
We live right across the river from Wall Street. I know a guy who got laid off two years ago and will most likely never work in his field again because that field no longer exists. He is still young. Someone else who used to do what he did is now selling ice cream. He was able to buy a franchise. Makes a fraction of what he used to make but does this so he can survive.
It's terrifying!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
So, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. That's what my husband did.

If I were 65, I'd do just that. In fact, if I'm still there at 65 I'm not planning very well.

However, that's a rather flip answer to give someone who's fifty, forty, thirty-five, or even younger.

I'm glad it was an option for you, but you're talking retirement at that age, not a possibly devastating loss of income and/or a need to literally rethink someone's entire life.

GSF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I get the impression that a lot of you people are really unhappy with your jobs. Maybe you have terrible jobs, or maybe you are just not very efficient workers.

In any case, you might consider doing something about it instead of just complaining. There probably are decent job out there for you.

In any case, you are not dealing with a fact of nature if you have a bad job.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It didn't used to be like this. But once the top levels saw you could get this level of work out of salaried, exempt employees in emergency situations, it got easier to demand it as SOP.



__________________________________________________

Absolutely! But in my husband's previous job this was SOP every single day. In addition, they planned for emergencies by having offices set up with computers off-site in a neighboring state and you were expected to go there if ever there was an emergency.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm glad it was an option for you, but you're talking retirement at that age, not a possibly devastating loss of income and/or a need to literally rethink someone's entire life.



_________________________________________________

Oh, it's impossible to tell one's entire life story in one thread.
Yes, we suffered a devastating loss of income thirteen years ago.
It came as a huge shock as my husband was only 52 years old age. We had to sell our house to raise cash, move to another state because my husband landed a job that paid him 50% less than what he was making in NY City. That job didn't pan out and we came back home. Got a job at Bear Stearns and most of us know how that went. He was very fortunate that he was one of the 2 1/2% of the employees who got to keep their jobs after JPMorgan took over.
Yes, we've had to rethink our lives and not just due to job losses and loss of income. I have had to deal with life changing illnesses in the past ten years.
Well, I guess you get the picture.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
joelxwil:

I get the impression a lot of you are real unhappy with your jobs. Maybe you have terrible jobs or just not efficient workers.....consider doing something about it instead of just complaining.

You don't think some of the so-called complainers haven't thought about "doing something about it?" I suspect a fair number have, but they're keenly aware of some things that your off-hand remark reveals you're not (or you're simply blithely dismissive).

Employers are in the driver's seat and have been, especially since 2008. The day when workers can defiantly up-and-quit are GONE. Employers know it, workers know it, and employers know that the workers know it. I wonder how many of the mega-hour jobs I've seen discussed here didn't used to be like that. People have been RIF'd so employers can "lbym," and work has been off-loaded to others, possibly resulting in more work-more hours for them with, of course, no increase in pay. Upset? Hell yes, they're upset. I don't blame them.

It's an employer's upper-hand world these days. You need no more proof of that than the despicable number of callous "unemployed need not apply" ads. Count me a complainer sympathizer...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

I get the impression that a lot of you people are really unhappy with your jobs. Maybe you have terrible jobs, or maybe you are just not very efficient workers.

In any case, you might consider doing something about it instead of just complaining. There probably are decent job out there for you.


I wish TMF would let me rec a post more than once cause yours deserved at least two recs!

Everybody's heard the maxim "Decide what you want to do for the rest of your life, then find a way to get paid for doing it." but few actually put their time & energy into doing that.

It may mean going to night school to get a GED or taking a low ranking job in an industry you want to enter in order to learn the ropes, but doing what it takes to get where you want to go is the only way to get there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Absolutely! But in my husband's previous job this was SOP every single day.

If I may ask, what kind of job in what kind of business did your husband work at?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wish TMF would let me rec a post more than once cause yours deserved at least two recs!

Doppels-R-Us
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 30
I get the impression that a lot of you people are really unhappy with your jobs. Maybe you have terrible jobs, or maybe you are just not very efficient workers.

In any case, you might consider doing something about it instead of just complaining. There probably are decent job out there for you.


By all measures on paper, I probably have a great job. I'm compensated very well. I work for a very large, multi-national, Fortune 100 company. I have excellent benefits. I have a lot of opportunities and have worked at many different positions and in many functional silos within my company.

I'm an extremely efficient worker. That's why I still have a job (FYI, of my department, I'm the *only* one who can say that, since we just "re-organized" last Thursday). Since about 2004, I have been regularly updating my portfolio of portable skills and I have managed to stay one step ahead of the I-don't-know-how-many rounds of layoffs that have happened to my friends and colleagues since then - most of whom were extremely "efficient" leaders, managers, workers, etc.

You seem to think that I'm just not working smart enough and *if only* I could figure out how to get my job done better I'd be happy.

But I started at this company nineteen years ago. The culture has changed. "Going global" means "move everything offshore" and "you get to work with contractors all over the world by phone and still get everything done."

It also means that we are expected to be on call almost 24 hours a day. I have a team leader in California, one in Europe, a boss here on the East Coast and a team in India. They all want meetings on their time.

I'm so glad you have a low-stress job that apparently paid all your bills and left plenty over for you to retire and live the life you want. I really think that's wonderful.

But you seem also to believe that it means that you think this is the way it works for everyone. It's not. Not in my company, not in the rest of comparable companies that friends of mine have jumped ship and moved to, believing the grass would be greener. It almost never was.

Maybe there is a job out there for me that pays what I make now, offers me the health benefits I need to keep my family (and their pre-existing conditions) healthy and would give me the pension and retiree benefits that I am desperately attempting to keep my job long enough to earn.

But I no longer believe it's even possible to keep up, when at all turns, there is a giant game of musical chairs going on and the jobs are streaming offshore faster than I can keep up with.

My question is, and has been: When did all of this become not only acceptable, but to the point where several people in this thread find it to be defensible on the part of the companies perpetuating it? Where it's assumed that either "You're lucky to have a job" or "Keep your head down" or "Get out of the kitchen" or "You must not be very efficient."

It has not always been like this. Why do we all assume that because it's like that now, it's right, good, or even remotely okay?

GSF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Some career fields are like that and there is nothing you can do. In my career field (Proposal Management), you can do a lot of up-front preparation but in the end you and your team have to wait for the Request for Proposal to be released, then develop a solution and write and print the response in a limited time frame. You have anywhere from 5 to 60 days. It is task-oriented work. I know what I have to do each day to stay on schedule. I work until that is done, then I can go home. These days, I can usually go home after 8 or 9 hours, but in the past I have often worked 11, 15, 17, and even more hours to get the product out the door and still meet my standards. I spent years working crazy hours as I worked out my tricks of the trade.

On the plus side - I have built best practices that make late night an uncommon event instead of business-as-usual. And, when we don't have a proposal we can take it easy and often have comp time off after submission. And it is really, really good to see a proposal and know it is good. I don't know I would handle those kind of hours if I were spending that time in repetitive tasks or tasks without a concrete product at the end.

Anyway, some jobs like mine are feast or famine (you are on or you are off). I think late hours shouldn't be the norm. It is unhealthy for people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm glad it was an option for you

Keep in mind that it wasn't her, it was her husband.

Two people working like crazy with kids to manage - whole other ball of wax.

When I am flying out on Sunday for a business trip, I do look around at fellow road warriors and wonder when business travel slid back to Sunday. I know it's different for me because it's my choice. I was not so amenable when I was an employee.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not. Not in my company, not in the rest of comparable companies that friends of mine have jumped ship and moved to, believing the grass would be greener. It almost never was.

Frequently, the grass is brown on both sides of the fence.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wish TMF would let me rec a post more than once cause yours deserved at least two recs!

Doppels-R-Us


News Flash! That meme/form of approval has been around for years. I've seen it dozens of times on these boards. You can't copyright the dictionary.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
Here's the thing - having to suck up to anyone stinks - but that's a fact of life for just about everyone unless you win the lottery.
I could not disagree more.

I am paid for my services and I offer worthwhile expertise and effort. If you don't want it, then don't hire me. If you do hire me for a project, presumably it's because you value what I do. It's a fair exchange. When I've been in situations where I wasn't treated fairly, I left.

I am (mostly) positive to my clients and project teams because you get more done with a happy team, and because anything (work related) can be solved and overcome with good spirit and some smarts.

I don't view basic courtesy as sucking up. The alternative is to be a jackass to people, and that's not the way I roll.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Maybe there is a job out there for me that pays what I make now, offers me the health benefits I need to keep my family (and their pre-existing conditions) healthy and would give me the pension and retiree benefits that I am desperately attempting to keep my job long enough to earn.
Well, no. There isn't. You cannot have it all.

But here's the thing. The options could be better. I was in your shoes for a long time. I was supper middle-management and was chased by rolling layoffs until I finally got the short end of the stock after a long, long time. Now I am still doing just what I was doing then (except not managing a department of people). I am paid more, because I am paid based on projects. No, I don't get a pension, but I have a 401k that offers me better savings potential.Yes, I buy my own health insurance and that kind of sucks as the options aren't as good. So if you have serious health issues and your husband doesn't have family coverage that could be a deal breaker.

But it could very well be better. I say *could* be better, as no doubt - it could be worse. But sometimes when the rolling layoffs and company culture just gets to be too much it really is better to leave.

But I no longer believe it's even possible to keep up, when at all turns, there is a giant game of musical chairs going on and the jobs are streaming offshore faster than I can keep up with.
Or you could leave and they could contract right back to you. Almost everyone I know who has left a company to go out on their own has consulted back to that same company - on better terms.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I was supper middle-management
Ummmm...yeah - I meant upper-middle-management, not supper-middle-management. Although I did sometimes eat at my desk.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Or you could leave and they could contract right back to you. Almost everyone I know who has left a company to go out on their own has consulted back to that same company - on better terms.


Really? I wonder if that varies by industry. In my current company and the last company I worked for (insurance), they have a very strict policy in place that they will not hire any former employee of the company as a contractor until they've been gone for at least 5 years.

Also, based on my experience, my industry doesn't hire contractors or consultants except in the IT area. Maybe on the financial side (accounting, investments), but I suspect they don't because of fiduciary concerns.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
My question is, and has been: When did all of this become not only acceptable, but to the point where several people in this thread find it to be defensible on the part of the companies perpetuating it? Where it's assumed that either "You're lucky to have a job" or "Keep your head down" or "Get out of the kitchen" or "You must not be very efficient."

It has not always been like this. Why do we all assume that because it's like that now, it's right, good, or even remotely okay?


I'm with you on this. My last position was 7-7 six days a week, and on call and expected to respond to emails beyond that. I liked my job, but there was just too, too, TOO much of it. The mantra in the office was "everyone who's a professional works long hours," and "you're just lucky you have a job."

My peer quit and was not replaced--I got his direct reports as well as my own. When I got sick, I was hounded to come back to work before I was better, leading to a really tough bout of pneumonia that I couldn't shake.

I think a lot of the financial crisis has allowed companies to make excuses for anti-employee practices. There was no reason not to replace my peer, and after I left that job, they did, in fact, replace me with 2 people (which I think is pretty funny). But you have the media constantly hammering us with how bad the economy is, and employers use that as an excuse. Little things like taking away our free coffee in teh breakroom, and bigger things like not replacing that employee, yet at the same time, we were making profits hand over fist.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think a lot of the financial crisis has allowed companies to make excuses for anti-employee practices. There was no reason not to replace my peer, and after I left that job, they did, in fact, replace me with 2 people (which I think is pretty funny).

My father had a massive stroke back in 1972. When the company realized that he would never return, they did a search and brought in someone else, who lasted three months. They finally split the job into parts and hired two people.

I have always believed that struggling to do two jobs was among the reasons for the stroke.

There have always been companies that demanded too much from their employees. When times are bad they shrug their shoulders and ignore complaints. When times are good and there are plenty of jobs available they offer extra benefits or perks, then take them away again when the bad times roll around.

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't know about insurance (fed banking regs and all that), but most companies hire differently as a contract employee vs. a contracting company.

I was the former at client "A" for a long, hard 9 months until I finally made the case that my company had independent clients and non-W2 income totally separate from them - with a separate financial identity from me as a person. After that they were willing to hire me through my company. At that point I was simply a resource that my company chose to offer to them as a client. It was much, much better. And at that point whether or not I had ever worked for them for 5 minutes or 5 years would have been moot as I wasn't directly contracted to them as an individual.

I can see that they wouldn't want to hire you as an individual "contract employee," but assuming you can show some kind of financial independence there is no reason they couldn't hire your company. Assuming you can structure one to have multiple paying clients. That's a bit of a chicken and egg thing, but it can work out.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If I may ask, what kind of job in what kind of business did your husband work at?

_______________________________________________

Banking. He was an operations manager in an international bank until he got laid off. Did consulting work for a few years also in banking. Got laid off again. We relocated for a job in another state because we had to sell our house. Ran out of money. Moved back to NY without jobs. Husband landed a job at Bear Stearns. A few years later BS went under.
Was able to keep his job when the other bank took over.Now they are relocating to another state in the summer. Wonder if anyone will even be offered jobs there. He left because he knew the end was near and they were asking those who were left to do the impossible.
There you have it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

If I may ask, what kind of job in what kind of business did your husband work at?
_______________________________________________

Banking. He was an operations manager in an international bank until he got laid off. Did consulting work for a few years also in banking. Got laid off again. We relocated for a job in another state because we had to sell our house. Ran out of money. Moved back to NY without jobs. Husband landed a job at Bear Stearns. A few years later BS went under.
Was able to keep his job when the other bank took over.Now they are relocating to another state in the summer. Wonder if anyone will even be offered jobs there. He left because he knew the end was near and they were asking those who were left to do the impossible.
There you have it.


Thanks,
It seems some companies don't take very good care of their employees.
Dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I get the impression that a lot of you people are really unhappy with your jobs. Maybe you have terrible jobs, or maybe you are just not very efficient workers.

In my case, the problem isn't the work I do - I do database/CRM conversions, and I actually enjoy the work.

The problem is lack of good management/leadership in organizations - and that seems to be a systemic problem in US businesses.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Thanks,
It seems some companies don't take very good care of their employees.
Dave

_____________________________________

The year that my husband didn't get a raise after exceeding all the impossible goals management set out for him, the CEO got a 23 million dollar bonus.
It's a really bad job market on Wall Street. There used to be a very large take-out place on Wall Street that went out of business. That was shocking because it was located right across from the stock exchange. A long time later a new take-out place opened up and that also went out of business. One wonders "where did all the people go". Well, automation has left many who used to work on the floor of the exchange, without jobs. They have to find other types of work and in many cases they are not suited to doing anything else. It's a tough time for people everywhere no matter what you do for a living.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But did you eat your own home made food then?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Kelly argues: Girls play with dolls from childhood, so “women are raised from the get-go to raise children successfully. When we are moms, we have a better toolbox.”
------------------------------------------------------
Ummm...in her house maybe.

Despite a brief stint with Barbies, I was always a legos/blocks/stuffed stuffed animals kind of gal, and never played with dolls. I built huge structures and plazas for my stuffed friends to inhabit. Set me up a treat to be an architect and engineer, it did.

Nothing wrong with playing with dolls, or being a mom. Just don't go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt to be a SAHM. That's just foolish.


Yeah, I'm apparently raising a boy Mom? Charley LOVES playing with dolls. He has a rather large collection of stuffed animals (mostly monkeys) that he spends a lot of time carrying around and feeding, dressing, and tucking into bed. Once they are down for naps, he vacuums the living room with his improvised vacuum (a push toy with a piece of yarn for a "cord"). He alternates these activities with playing with his cars and building blocks. Often both those items at some point become phones.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
He has a rather large collection of stuffed animals (mostly monkeys) that he spends a lot of time carrying around and feeding, dressing, and tucking into bed.

I recently learned with my nephews build a bear's that they all (well, except the youngest one) enjoy dressing their animals, and they change them into pj's at night. It's not odd.

Also, i hated dolls as a kid. Suck it, random lady who paid too much for her MSW.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I was being a bit sarcastic. I guess it didn't come across in plain text.

But it is really super cute watching him feed his animals. Lately he's been giving everyone shots with his pretend syringe.
Print the post Back To Top