Pawternity leave

Have you fellers gone mad? And monikers of 'Pet Parents'? Weenie at its finest. Time off to care for a new pet? Me, I would fire an employee for even asking for it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/new-pet-parents-paternity-leave-b1940204.html

@averagejoe1 said
Have you fellers gone mad? And monikers of 'Pet Parents'? Weenie at its finest. Time off to care for a new pet? Me, I would fire an employee for even asking for it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/new-pet-parents-paternity-leave-b1940204.html

I hate to say it (no, I don't), but nobody asked you.

@averagejoe1 said
Have you fellers gone mad? And monikers of 'Pet Parents'? Weenie at its finest. Time off to care for a new pet? Me, I would fire an employee for even asking for it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/new-pet-parents-paternity-leave-b1940204.html

It’s one, probably quite woke-aware, CEO testing opinion. It’s not legally enforceable, or entitled.

But this will get the blood flowing through the dive-hating veins…

During my time as a director in a blue-chip one of the female sales reps asked if she could change her contract to part time to suit her new lifestyle with a baby. I said no. At the time there was no precedent, HR supported my decision.

A couple of years later my successor, a far more accommodating, loving, woke and silly person than myself, said yes.

Which of us was the better corporate citizen?

Here’s what happened:
- Rep one was permitted to go 4 days per week and had her target and territory reduced by 20%
- the rest of the team had to pick up that target, and the geographic coverage, as the national quota was not reduced.
- then there was another rep who had a two year old who needed more care…
- then there was another and another and another
- then the men wanted reduced days and equality kicked in, rightly so..
- suddenly the market had reduced its selling time (effectively its headcount) by plus 10% but still had to hit the full quota.
- still the requests kept coming and could not now be refused as multiple precedents had been set.

There’s more than one way to be fair and it’s not by giving in when you don’t have to.

As for pet leave. Just LOL.

@averagejoe1 said
Have you fellers gone mad? And monikers of 'Pet Parents'? Weenie at its finest. Time off to care for a new pet? Me, I would fire an employee for even asking for it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/new-pet-parents-paternity-leave-b1940204.html

Good. Fire him. Who needs happy, loyal employees who do their jobs without stress.

Businesses thrive when the worker has a fukton of stuff to worry about besides doing their job.

@zahlanzi said
Good. Fire him. Who needs happy, loyal employees who do their jobs without stress.

Businesses thrive when the worker has a fukton of stuff to worry about besides doing their job.

Here speaks a person who’s never lead a team in the corporate environment, never run a business and lives in a rainbows and unicorn world of absolutes and sugar-cane morality.

@divegeester said
It’s one, probably quite woke-aware, CEO testing opinion. It’s not legally enforceable, or entitled.

But this will get the blood flowing through the dive-hating veins…

During my time as a director in a blue-chip one of the female sales reps asked if she could change her contract to part time to suit her new lifestyle with a baby. I said no. At the time there was no ...[text shortened]... one way to be fair and it’s not by giving in when you don’t have to.

As for pet leave. Just LOL.

So what you're saying is incompetent managers reduced work hours for some people but did not hire additional workers to pick up the slack and just dumped that workload in the laps of the other employees.

Sooo the takeaway is... what exactly? That "woke, silly" manager shouldn't have said yes?

@divegeester said
Here speaks a person who’s never lead a team in the corporate environment, never run a business and lives in a rainbows and unicorn world of absolutes and sugar-cane morality.

No, but I work in a corporation that treats its workers fairly and I see the level of productivity that comes with that.

I have also worked in other corporations with inflexible absurd managers like you said you were and they always seem to spend quite a lot on training new employees because the ones they have just quit.

A happy employee is an asset to the company. It's not about "silly wokeness" it's about good, pragmatic management. It's about investing in people, not disposable cogs.

@divegeester said
It’s one, probably quite woke-aware, CEO testing opinion. It’s not legally enforceable, or entitled.

But this will get the blood flowing through the dive-hating veins…

During my time as a director in a blue-chip one of the female sales reps asked if she could change her contract to part time to suit her new lifestyle with a baby. I said no. At the time there was no ...[text shortened]... one way to be fair and it’s not by giving in when you don’t have to.

As for pet leave. Just LOL.

My god your such an egotistical twerp you think there is an actual definable group of people who can be bothered hating you.
Your not important enough to hate dive you are just a bit of a jobsworth and the story above highlights that perfectly. Fortunately you’d be unemployable as a manager in the uk today.

@zahlanzi said
So what you're saying is incompetent managers reduced work hours for some people but did not hire additional workers to pick up the slack and just dumped that workload in the laps of the other employees.

Sooo the takeaway is... what exactly? That "woke, silly" manager shouldn't have said yes?

No that’s isn’t what I’m saying but I appreciate the effort to put words in my mouth.

Correct; when no precedents are set for the circumstance they were facing, they should have pointed enquiring employees to the legally binding contract which they happily signed on joining the company.

Furthermore they should have considered the impact of the rest of the team, on customers and on long term morale, which incidentally plummeted in the aftermath.

your “why didn’t they just hire more people” comment gives away your ignorance of how head count is managed across a large enterprise, the impact on pension funding, IT and infrastructure costs such as company cars, the cost per head increases, and in the larger landscape the impact on the corporate profile on the stock market.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

@kevcvs57 said
My god your such an egotistical twerp you think there is an actual definable group of people who can be bothered hating you.
Your not important enough to hate dive you are just a bit of a jobsworth and the story above highlights that perfectly. Fortunately you’d be unemployable as a manager in the uk today.

Lol, little do you know.

Get back to the Polexit thread and rant there.

@zahlanzi said
No, but I work in a corporation that treats its workers fairly and I see the level of productivity that comes with that.

I have also worked in other corporations with inflexible absurd managers like you said you were and they always seem to spend quite a lot on training new employees because the ones they have just quit.

A happy employee is an asset to the company. I ...[text shortened]... okeness" it's about good, pragmatic management. It's about investing in people, not disposable cogs.

Setting national precedents for reduced working hours is not good management.

The team I lead where highly motivated, well rewarded, developed, promoted, happy and retained. One person asked the question, the answer was no and no one asked again, they were on contracts, the business is not obliged to change a contact especially if it sets a national precedent.

The team the other person led, missed all their financial numbers, KPIs and the leader eventually left the business.

@kevcvs57 said
you think there is an actual definable group of people who can be bothered hating you.

You should get out more, it’s fun and games in the general forum.

Chill out Kev.

So let’s allow people to take time off to care for their new pet.

Maybe people can work all the Ts (ten till two, Tuesday to Thursday), so they can take their hamster for a walk.

@divegeester said
Lol, little do you know.

Get back to the Polexit thread and rant there.

Not as little as you though Tory boy. Your the one who came on here ranting about women wanting maternity leave to look after new born babies.
I bet the boys got you a pint in that night I wouldn’t be surprised if they polished your ford capri for you.
You just come across as an inadequate line manager.

@divegeester said
No that’s isn’t what I’m saying but I appreciate the effort to put words in my mouth.

Correct; when no precedents are set for the circumstance they were facing, they should have pointed enquiring employees to the legally binding contract which they happily signed on joining the company.

Furthermore they should have considered the impact of the rest of the team, o ...[text shortened]... the corporate profile on the stock market.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

"No that’s isn’t what I’m saying but I appreciate the effort to put words in my mouth. "
That wasn't a question. That WAS what you were saying.

"your “why didn’t they just hire more people” comment gives away your ignorance of how head count is managed across a large enterprise, the impact on pension funding, IT and infrastructure costs such as company cars, the cost per head increases, and in the larger landscape the impact on the corporate profile on the stock market. "
Did you just list items to make your list bigger?
Did you list IT as a significant cost in hiring more people? Did you list pension funding which is lower for part time workers?
Hey, you forgot to mention how the toilet paper budget will be increased if the company has more workers.

"You clearly have no idea what you are talking about."
Well since you were the first to declare this i guess it's settled then.